Ham, I'll respond in nuggets;
>In your first message, to Ian, back in Sept. you claimed to be an >Objectivist and challenged Ian to refute an Ayn Rand argument. Since then >you have introduced concepts that are anything but objectivist. >For example, on 10/10 you stated (again to Ian) that "...nothing can be >shown to exist independent of humans. Man is the measure of all things." >On the same day you said to Arlo: >> People have died, and reality still exists. But when >> the last human dies, reality cannot be shown to exist. >> Reality, in fact, is human. This is elemental and is >> Pirsig's philosophical "jumping off point". >As I understand Rand's Objectivism, existence is primary but contingent upon >its perception. In Rand's own words: "Existence exists -- and the act of >grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists >which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness being the >faculty of perceiving that which exists." [Atlas Shrugged] As you can clearly see Rand states that existence is objective, not primary. Micah -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ham Priday Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:11 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?) Micah -- I'm fascinated by some of the assertions you've made, and would like to explore them with you, if this is agreeable. In your first message, to Ian, back in Sept. you claimed to be an Objectivist and challenged Ian to refute an Ayn Rand argument. Since then you have introduced concepts that are anything but objectivist. For example, on 10/10 you stated (again to Ian) that "...nothing can be shown to exist independent of humans. Man is the measure of all things." On the same day you said to Arlo: > People have died, and reality still exists. But when > the last human dies, reality cannot be shown to exist. > Reality, in fact, is human. This is elemental and is > Pirsig's philosophical "jumping off point". As I understand Rand's Objectivism, existence is primary but contingent upon its perception. In Rand's own words: "Existence exists -- and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists." [Atlas Shrugged] It would seem to me that, although we can't know the nature of what exists (i.e., the object), Rand is saying that existence is primary to conscious awareness. If so, then if one equates existence with "reality", it is not human and therefore does not disappear when the last human dies. Like Pirsig, however, Rand does not posit a primary source or "ultimate" reality; so it's not clear whether perception is derived from existence or a higher source. On 10/12 you said to Platt: > If I have a fire and in the fire is a rock and the fire > has been burning for an hour - is the rock hot? > No - the rock is not hot, it is not anything but a rock. > You are hot when you touch the rock and you may say > the rock is hot, but the rock doesn't know what hot is. > It is a rock. The rock's molecules have moved apart and > are moving, and a thermostat may read a high temperature, > but the rock is not hot. Hot is a mental concept we have > and have placed on the rock. To me, this is a question of how you define "hot". If you raise the temperature of a lump of coal to its ignition point, it erupts in flame and begins to disintegrate into gaseous forms of carbon. This is "hot" in the objective sense, and it definitely affects the object, whether or not you are present to "feel" the heat. Therefore, unless you claim that the burning coal in my fireplace is imaginary, heat is a physical phenomenon measurable by a thermometer and observable as combustion. I don't deny that what I feel as heat or pain when I touch a hot rock is a subjective sensation, and I accept that fact that a rock doesn't know what hot is. But how can you deny that the source of what feels "hot" to me is the thermal energy emitted from the rock? On 1/21 you said to Platt: > Yes we are in the universe, but "design" is a human mental > concept that exists in us, not in the universe. Mental concepts > do not exist without humans, only within them. I agree that the "mental concept" of a design does not exist without humans, but I have no rational justification for assuming that a design cannot exist without humans. How do you explain the design of the physical universe before there were human concepts? Please understand, Mica, I'm in no way criticising your statements. In general I understand and applaud the direction you're heading. I believe that if one takes the metaphysics implied by the MoQ literally, your conclusions are valid. But these are questions for which I currently have no answer. I'm hoping you do. Thanks, and best regards, Ham moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
